Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 23NWCV00920, Date: 2025-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00920    Hearing Date: February 14, 2025    Dept: 74

Mirage Builders, Inc. v. Pinner Construction Co. Inc. et al.

Defendant Pinner Construction Co., Inc.’s Motion to Consolidate Cases

BACKGROUND 

The motion arises from a breach of contract and implied warranty cause of action.

On March 24, 2023, Plaintiff Mirage Builders, Inc. filed a complaint against defendant Pinner Construction Co., Inc. (Pinner) for breach of contract (the Mirage case).  Pinner seeks to consolidate four cases.

Defendant seeks to consolidate the Mirage case with R&J Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Pinner Construction Co., Inc. 23STCV04243; and Piner Construction Co., Inc. v. Rio Hondo Community College District et al. 23STCV21144; Pinner Construction Co., Inc. v. Rio Hondo Community College District 24STCV22817.

JUDICIAL NOTICE

            The court grants judicial notice that exhibits 1 through 12 (RHCCD RJN Feb. 6, 2025) and Answers (PCC RJN Feb. 6, 2025) exist and of their legal effect (if any) but not of the truth of their contents.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Court may consolidate actions involving a common question of law or fact.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a).)  The notice must (1) list all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record; (2) contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and (3) be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350.)  The motion must (1) only include the memorandums, declarations and other supporting papers in the lowest numbered case; (2) must be served on all attorneys of record and all nonrepresented parties; and (3) must have proof of service filed as part of the motion.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350.)

DISCUSSION

            As a preliminary matter, the notice of the Motion to Consolidate lists all named parties and the names of their respective attorneys of record, contains the captions of all cases starting with the lowest numbered, and was filed in each case.  Additionally, the documents were all submitted in the lowest numbered case, the documents were served on all parties and the motion included the proof of service with the motion.  Therefore, the motion is procedurally sufficient.

            Pinner requests the cases be consolidated on the grounds that all cases are related and arise from the same construction project (the Project).  Defendants in Pinner Construction Co., Inc. v. Rio Hondo Community College District (RHCCD Defendants) argue that each of the lawsuits involve different parties and different issues of law and fact. 

            The R&J Case and the Mirage Case are primarily breach of contract claims where the central questions of law and fact center on whether Pinner is liable to the subcontractors on the Project.  The first Rio Hondo action alleges that RHCCD Defendants committed taxpayer waste and provided contracts to defendant Del Terra in excess of the market rate.  Del Terra was the construction manager on the Project.  The second Rio Hondo case is also a breach of contract case for the Project.

A central issue in all four cases is whether Pinner is liable for the delays which resulted in the alleged breach of contract. And, indeed, the primary facts and legal issues in the construction cases of Mirage Builders, Inc. v. Pinner Construction Co., Inc.; R&J Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Pinner Construction Co., Inc. and Pinner Construction Co., Inc. v. Rio Hondo Community College District [24STCV22817] are similar. But, on the other hand, the dispute in Pinner v. Rio Hondo Community College District et al. [23STCV21144], while related to the construction cases, involves different parties, incidents, and questions of law that go beyond the scope of the construction dispute.  Consolidating all four actions risks greatly expanding the scope of the litigation of the three contract disputes.  Additionally, it risks confusing the jury by adding in questions of alleged fraud with questions related to the fault for contractual delays.

CONCLUSION

            The court denies Pinner’s Motion to Consolidate.

            Pinner shall give notice.